Schumer: States Have NO Power in Stimulus programs

[sbark]

http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/02/24/democrats-demand-that-states-have-no-power-what-funds-they-accept-from-the-fedsobey-ceasar/
Democrats Demand That States Have No Power On What Funds They Can Accept From The Fed’s…..

Posted by: Curt (http://www.floppingaces.net/author/Curt/) @ 10:24 am in Congress (http://www.floppingaces.net/category/politics/congress-politics/), Economy (http://www.floppingaces.net/category/economy/), Obamanomics (http://www.floppingaces.net/category/politics/barack-obama-politics/obamanomics/), Politics (http://www.floppingaces.net/category/politics/)
Visited 474 times, 474 so far today
Chuck Schumer is demanding that the States (http://schumer.senate.gov/new_website/releases.cfm) in the union should NOT have the power to make decisions on the what and where the money given to them is spent from the Generational Theft Act:
In recent days, a small minority of governors, mostly Republicans, have publicly weighed the possibility of foregoing certain emergency provisions provided under the American Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act signed last week by President Obama. I believe this prospect not only would undercut the stimulative effect of the recovery package, but also is inconsistent with a key provision included in the law passed by Congress. To protect the integrity of the recovery program, I urge the administration to issue implementation guidance clarifying that while any Governor may exercise his or her discretion to accept or reject the federal funds provided in the stimulus, no Governor should have the authority to arbitrarily adopt a select subset of the overall package.
Note: letter isn’t up on Schumers website yet, you can google the above and be taken to the looney left sites that have it up….will not link to them.
He cries that some states are rejecting the additional tax on small businesses by refusing to expand unemployment insurance for laid off workers. The tax is an undue burden on the segment of our society that is the backbone of capitilism. The small business owner. Thankfully there are a few Republicans refusing to put this burden on the backs of the small business owner.
Either the states accept all the money and spend it how they are told to spend it or they get none of it. In effect demanding fealty to the emperor.

......Jindahls response to the "One" tonight will of interest, hope he and Sanford of S.C. address this power grab.

[ABQCOWBOY]

http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/02/24/democrats-demand-that-states-have-no-power-what-funds-they-accept-from-the-fedsobey-ceasar/
Democrats Demand That States Have No Power On What Funds They Can Accept From The Fed’s…..

Posted by: Curt (http://www.floppingaces.net/author/Curt/) @ 10:24 am in Congress (http://www.floppingaces.net/category/politics/congress-politics/), Economy (http://www.floppingaces.net/category/economy/), Obamanomics (http://www.floppingaces.net/category/politics/barack-obama-politics/obamanomics/), Politics (http://www.floppingaces.net/category/politics/)
Visited 474 times, 474 so far today
Chuck Schumer is demanding that the States (http://schumer.senate.gov/new_website/releases.cfm) in the union should NOT have the power to make decisions on the what and where the money given to them is spent from the Generational Theft Act:
In recent days, a small minority of governors, mostly Republicans, have publicly weighed the possibility of foregoing certain emergency provisions provided under the American Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act signed last week by President Obama. I believe this prospect not only would undercut the stimulative effect of the recovery package, but also is inconsistent with a key provision included in the law passed by Congress. To protect the integrity of the recovery program, I urge the administration to issue implementation guidance clarifying that while any Governor may exercise his or her discretion to accept or reject the federal funds provided in the stimulus, no Governor should have the authority to arbitrarily adopt a select subset of the overall package.
Note: letter isn’t up on Schumers website yet, you can google the above and be taken to the looney left sites that have it up….will not link to them.
He cries that some states are rejecting the additional tax on small businesses by refusing to expand unemployment insurance for laid off workers. The tax is an undue burden on the segment of our society that is the backbone of capitilism. The small business owner. Thankfully there are a few Republicans refusing to put this burden on the backs of the small business owner.
Either the states accept all the money and spend it how they are told to spend it or they get none of it. In effect demanding fealty to the emperor.

......Jindahls response to the "One" tonight will of interest, hope he and Sanford of S.C. address this power grab.


It's amazing just how unconstitutional all of this is. I tell you, somebody is going to get rich of litigation on this thing.

[BrAinPaiNt]

It's amazing just how unconstitutional all of this is. I tell you, somebody is going to get rich of litigation on this thing.

Why would this be unconstitutional?

From my understand what the is saying is that if they want to take the money they have to take the whole thing and not just pick and choose what they want and don't want. In other words they get no line item veto power basically if they take the money. Clinton got the line item veto at one time but that was overturned by scotus. By letting the Gov just pick and choose what they want or don't want that would be basically giving them the line item veto.

I had respect in an earlier thread you asked me about concerning Jindal. Take the money or don't take the money. What he seems to be wanting to do is take the money he wants and not take money he does not want. He wants to have his cake and eat it too and from what I understand Schumer is saying this is a package deal...take it or leave it.

Now most states have the line item veto for state bills for their own budgets but I don't think that applies to federal funds.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Why would this be unconstitutional?

From my understand what the is saying is that if they want to take the money they have to take the whole thing and not just pick and choose what they want and don't want. In other words they get no line item veto power basically if they take the money. Clinton got the line item veto at one time but that was overturned by scotus. By letting the Gov just pick and choose what they want or don't want that would be basically giving them the line item veto.

I had respect in an earlier thread you asked me about concerning Jindal. Take the money or don't take the money. What he seems to be wanting to do is take the money he wants and not take money he does not want. He wants to have his cake and eat it too and from what I understand Schumer is saying this is a package deal...take it or leave it.

Now most states have the line item veto for state bills for their own budgets but I don't think that applies to federal funds.


The Constitution says that the Federal Government is not supposed to have authority over State Government, to the exclusion of state law. Now, this is going to be very interesting because not every state allows the Federal Government to mandate funds. I listened to a discussion on the way into work this morning between lawyers discussing this very issue. It seems that if limitations are put on these funds as an all or none situtation, the Government may put themselves in jeapordy as to how they can or can not Govern the States.

As far as having respect, I don't know why you wouldn't have respect in that situation. It is a reasonable concern. If the funds are positioned in such a way as to say, if you accept these supposed relief packages, then you must re-write your existing laws to support budget increases for these benifits, long term. How can you go to a state and tell them that they deserve, just as an example, 50 million in short term assistance and that they must continue to fund 50 million is annual budgets increase for unemployement.?

That is not constitutional.

[sbark]

This will be the type of issue a state or group of states will push for Obama's actual authority to push this on the states......

[theogt]

The Constitution says that the Federal Government is not supposed to have authority over State Government, to the exclusion of state law. Now, this is going to be very interesting because not every state allows the Federal Government to mandate funds. I listened to a discussion on the way into work this morning between lawyers discussing this very issue. It seems that if limitations are put on these funds as an all or none situtation, the Government may put themselves in jeapordy as to how they can or can not Govern the States.

As far as having respect, I don't know why you wouldn't have respect in that situation. It is a reasonable concern. If the funds are positioned in such a way as to say, if you accept these supposed relief packages, then you must re-write your existing laws to support budget increases for these benifits, long term. How can you go to a state and tell them that they deserve, just as an example, 50 million in short term assistance and that they must continue to fund 50 million is annual budgets increase for unemployement.?

That is not constitutional.Oh, goody, more amateur lawyering.

The constitutionality of this can't even begin to be discussed with the facts as we know them, so please don't even begin to try.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Oh, goody, more amateur lawyering.

The constitutionality of this can't even begin to be discussed with the facts as we know them, so please don't even begin to try.

You don't have to listen. In fact, you don't have to respond. It's a public board like it or not.

[JBond]

Oh, goody, more amateur lawyering.


Oh goody, more amateur postings. :rolleyes:

[theogt]

Oh goody, more amateur posting. :rolleyes:You get paid for this?

What a crock.

[JBond]

You get paid for this?

What a crock.

I know, silly me. We all must learn our place. The great theogt has spoken. All must obey the great defender of idiot bankers. Why in the world would anyone listen to you? Your credibility is zero.

[theogt]

I know, silly me. We all must learn our place. The great theogt has spoken. All must obey the great defender of idiot bankers. Why in the world would anyone listen to you? Your credibility is zero.Wow, even that flew over your head?

[iceberg]

Oh, goody, more amateur lawyering.

The constitutionality of this can't even begin to be discussed with the facts as we know them, so please don't even begin to try.

well it's only fair. you already had the amateur economist base covered.

[theogt]

well it's only fair. you already had the amateur economist base covered.You'd think most people would know basic economics. Sadly it's not true.

[iceberg]

You'd think most people would know basic economics. Sadly it's not true.

well don't give up, little theo. you'll get it.

[ThaBigP]

Oh, goody, more amateur lawyering.

The constitutionality of this can't even begin to be discussed with the facts as we know them, so please don't even begin to try.

Ah, yes, the omnipotent Commerce Clause, and "Necessary and Proper Clause", which by Theo's assessment allows the Federal Government to do any damn thing it wants. Whether or not it qualifies as "commerce" or even "interstate". Keep in mind, all of this "commerce clause" and "necessary and proper" clause = Feds can do anything nonsense stems from Wickard v Filburn, a 1940s Supreme Court ruling (an FDR-packed Court, BTW). The gist of the case went like this: in the 30s they had limits for farmers on the amounts of certain types of crops they could grow, to keep prices up (deflation, remember). The argument was the "commerce clause" and "necessary and proper clause". This one farmer grew wheat on his farm that the government insisted he stop growing under this law. He protested, saying that the wheat in question wasn't even for sale...he used it for his personal consumption and to feed some livestock. The case landed in the Supreme Court...and the Feds actually argued that because he DID NOT engage in interstate commerce with his wheat, it qualified as interstate commerce...because by NOT selling his wheat, he was denying that wheat to the market (conversely, by growing his own he wasn't buying from the market for his wheat needs), and therefore affecting the interstate commerce of that grain. So, they argued that NOT engaging in interstate commerce qualifies as engaging in interstate commerce and therefore puts the Feds in jurisdiction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

edit, I only bring up the Commerce Clause since Theo has used that as a blanket justification in the past for pretty much anything the Feds want to do...buying stakes in companies, banks, taking taxpayer money to funnel to various targeted institutions/industries, etc.

[ThaBigP]

Wow, even that flew over your head?

I must confess to being an amateur poster myself...as I do not make my livelihood though posts.